21 ms·
Australian activist can't use encrypted apps, must let police access phone
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- deathgripsss 4y agoThis seems incredibly Draconian for a climate protestor. Would this prohibit him from accessing cryptocurrencies?
- anothernewdude 4y agoDude is a climate activist. I think other things preclude him from cryptocurrency.
- _Algernon_ 4y agoCryptocurrency != bitcoin. Plenty of cryptocurrencies that don't rely on PoW
- adgjlsfhk1 4y agowhich?
- e12e 4y agoNot only that; this is before a guilty verdict! > Mr Rolles has pled not guilty and is awaiting trial. And it certainly seems extreme: > Mr Davis said one of his clients had been pulled in by police after they reacted with a "thumbs up" emoji to Facebook comments shared by friends who were also allegedly part of Blockade Australia activities. > "A thumbs up, it's not much in terms of communication," the activist told the ABC. > "The fact that the state finds that threatening — people talking and sharing our ideas — is very telling." > No breach of bail charges were ultimately pursued over the "likes".
- lostlogin 4y agoCrypto is one thing, but what about his normal banking?
- mr_toad 4y ago> Would this prohibit him from accessing cryptocurrencies? Taken literally he wouldn’t be able to do online banking or access any encrypted website.
- Smoosh 4y agoThe police seem to have a vendetta against the group the accused is part of: https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/news/politics/2022/07/02/inside-the-police-crackdown-blockade-australia https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/news/politics/2022/07/02...
- anothernewdude 4y agoSounds like Australia to me.
- femto 4y agoTechnically it is not Australia but New South Wales, the most populous state in Australia. Australia is a federation of states, with the federal government only having legislative power in certain areas. The result is a mish-mash of different layers [1]. Hopefully these laws won't survive a journey though the NSW courts, but even so they will have achieved their goal of disrupting protests. If there is a glimmer of hope it is that the government that passed these laws is mired in a corruption scandal and probably won't survive elections early next year [2]. State governments in Australia, particularly NSW, kowtow to real estate developer / economic interests. Despite there being an official ban on political donations from real estate developers, the landed gentry seem to maintain their sway [3]. For example the koala is now an endangered species in NSW [4], as proposed koala protection laws for the then vulnerable species were gutted after pressure from land holders [5]. [1] https://peo.gov.au/understand-our-parliament/how-parliament-works/three-levels-of-government/three-levels-of-government-governing-australia/ https://peo.gov.au/understand-our-parliament/how-parliament-... [2] https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-07-29/dominic-perrottet-backs-stuart-ayres-eleni-petinos/101283530 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-07-29/dominic-perrottet-bac... [3] https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-10-15/nsw-history-of-corruption-icac/12767346 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-10-15/nsw-history-of-corrup... [4] https://www.npr.org/2022/02/11/1080081190/koalas-endangered-australia https://www.npr.org/2022/02/11/1080081190/koalas-endangered-... [5] https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-03-08/nsw-coalition-strikes-deal-on-koala-policy/13227862 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-03-08/nsw-coalition-strikes...
- justatdotin 4y agolol not just nsw
- motohagiography 4y agoAfter a discussion with a lawyer friend (not australia, canada, so tangentially related), the "presumption of innocence" that would not obligate this person to have or produce a key for whatever gibberish someone sends to their devices, is what's known in legal circles as a "principle of fundamental justice," and it is not a right that is either absolute or inaliable the way that american rights are set up. One doesn't need to agree with the persons cause to recognize this is another extreme overstepping of authority on the part of that government to mandate that the people who communicate with the person subject to this order may also not protect their own commuications from interception, and that the person subject to the order must somehow produce a key for whatever data gets sent to him. Given the cynical application of laws and their moderating charter exceptions in places like Australia and Canada over the last few years, I could forsee a new republican movement emerging in commonwealth countries, as it's pretty clear CAN/AUS/NZ have dispensed with notions of fundamental justice, and have a "so sue me," approach to legislation and governance, as this stuff is just too stupid to be reasoned with. The language means nothing, the principles mean nothing. It's no longer about tech, it's about what our options are when the state has demonstrated official contempt for the people it ostensibly serves.
- contingencies 4y agoIt's pretty clear CAN/AUS/NZ have dispensed with notions of fundamental justice, and have a "so sue me," approach to legislation and governance, as this stuff is just too stupid to be reasoned with. The language means nothing, the principles mean nothing. It's no longer about tech, it's about what our options are when the state has demonstrated official contempt for the people it ostensibly serves. Well articulated. Exhibit A: Successive Australian governments allowing Assange's imprisonment. Exhibit B: Australia not allowing its own citizens to leave the country during COVID without first requesting permission. Exhibit C: Steadily increasing internet and mobile surveillance and censorship.
- userbinator 4y agoOne doesn't need to agree with the persons cause to recognize this is another extreme overstepping of authority on the part of that government to mandate that the people who communicate with the person subject to this order may also not protect their own commuications from interception, and that the person subject to the order must somehow produce a key for whatever data gets sent to him. As someone who matches exactly what your first clause says, I fully agree with this; especially since he apparently has not even been judged yet.
- kgeist 4y agoI just checked that the right against self-incrimination exists in Australia, too. Isn't it a violation of this law to require someone to tell their passwords?
- macinjosh 4y agoIMO, this is a key difference between AU and USA. In Australia the government gives you rights. But that means they can also revoke them in some situations since the rights are derived from the government itself. In the US, our rights are innate and inalienable. We possess them because we exist. Our constitution says the government cannot violate these innate rights, not that the document/government gives us the rights. It is a subtle yet very important difference.
- palmetieri2000 4y agoBy what metric are your rights inalienable and innate? Your government permits you to to have those rights through extremely similar mechanisms to ours in Australia. Has the US ever violated one of its citizens 'innate rights'? Constantly, there are thousands of professional constitutional lawyers and government officials arguing over the interpretation of that document and the precedents set by historic interpretations. Ie, your government is actively in the process of deciding how the legal system interacts with the citizens and the constitution, which is definitively your government giving you the rights. See, every 2A Supreme Court battle ever.
- boppo1 4y ago>By what metric are your rights inalienable and innate? The 2nd. Edit: >definitively your government giving you the rights Because we've gotten lazy and allowed it. Most of our legislative buildings have public balconies above the floors where laws are made. The architecture is sort of a reminder/implicit threat. Or it was, once upon a time. "We're watching you. Don't make any laws that are draconian".
- 2Gkashmiri 4y ago
- ranger_danger 4y agoI don't see how such a law even makes the phone/laptop itself safe to use, literally everything employs encryption now, it's built right in to the CPU and most websites you visit. Would obfuscation be considered encryption? And what about remote access? Is ssh or remote desktop considered off-limits? How could such usage even be policed when it's their own device with no tracking software installed?
- EastSmith 4y agoGoodbye to https too.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- EastSmith 4y agoCan't wait untill they install obligatory mind readers in 8 years. What a joke of country has Australia gotten to?
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- FpUser 4y agoI'll wait until those activists will start falling out of the windows. Should not take long with the way things are going. Same shit in Canada. All because we do not really have rights. They are bestowed on us by our masters and can be taken away.
- russelg 4y agoThis is a state level ruling, not federal. Blame the NSW government, not Australia as a whole. I'm not saying the feds are innocent either but this was not their doing.
- BLKNSLVR 4y agoYou're not wrong but, with the previous Federal government at least, it was a very short line to draw between the two. Fingers crossed the government change undoes at least some of the last decade of damage - already dropped the case against Bernard Collaery, which is at least a little ray of sunshine following a cloudy winter.
- justatdotin 4y agosee for example The Capability, which had all state governments wilfully submit to the feds, in handing over state-held license photo data to enable construction of a national facial recognition system. The only jurisdiction to seek any limitations to how The Capability can be used against aussie citizens was (drumroll...) ACT.
- harry8 4y agoExactly what happens when ignorant fools who are politicians and lawyers who are every bit as arrogant as they are ignorant. "..with a computer" just makes so many powerful peoples' brains fall out of their ears. "Skip all established market regulation, with a computer." Ok, I don't know how to think about this because computer. "Act like the stasi spying on people in ways they never agreed to with a the most massive bait and switch ever see, with a computer." Ok I don't know how to think about this because computer. "Organise a peaceful protest with a computer." Hold up, no computer for you. There needs to be an established technique for people to explain and understand what is going on by describing how precisely the same thing could be done with an infinite army of paper pushers. [1] You've just banned this guy from taking out pen and paper and writing a letter to his kids substituting A with N, B with O, and so on in what is known as a Caesar Cipher named after the late Roman emperor who used it a couple of thousand years ago and is now commonly used by children. If you believe this guy to be doing something illegal, like organising an illegal peaceful protest you GET A WARRANT and then require him to provide the passwords. It's that simple. Really. If you can't get a warrant then you shouldn't be looking at all. [1] Would also work for describing what facebook, google, air bnb do so we don't go from zero regulation any illegal conduct goes swinging back right to overregulation that destroys all their competition. Just applying the normal antitrust, tax, consumer protection laws etc and throws into stark relief where there is actually a need for expanding the coverage of the law (or contracting it).
- ytch 4y agoI am think of the same thing. What if he type some random words, but police claim they are encrypted messages, how does he prove it is “meaningless”?
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- soraminazuki 4y agoPoliticians definitely don't push invasive laws out of ignorance. They do that if they're able to get away with it.
- mellosouls 4y agoNote these are bail conditions (so presumably an alternative to a much more constrained existence in prison) for a charge that indicates potential for inflicting severe economic damage after organization via communication devices. When compared to bail conditions for other charged crimes which may also be strict and context-related (eg. trackers or keeping distance from a victim of violence) it sounds tough (and right to be strictly monitored under rights laws) but not necessarily unreasonable. Is it wrong/excessive/draconian? Possibly. But I don't think a knee-jerk assumption that it is any of those things is appropriate.
- causality0 4y agoThe fact "causing economic damage" is a crime should be enough of a red flag by itself.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- SilverBirch 4y agoIf I steal a car from a car dealership, what am I guilty of other than "causing economic damage"? Isn't economic damage the fundamental issue of any theft?
- orestarod 4y agoYou are guilty of property theft. You forcibly took away something that belonged to another entity. The fundamental issue is property. No "economic damage" slips into the argument. If that was the case, market competition would be illegal as you cause economic damage to your competitors. Advocating for veganism would be illegal because you cause economic damage to meat sellers. Inventing new technologies would be illegal because you cause economical damage to the old guard. Leaving anything other than 5 star reviews would be illegal because you cause economical damage. Calling for boycotting of unethical companies or states would be illegal (all hail anti Israel boycotting laws in the US). Etc etc.
- jacooper 4y agoNot unexpected from the state that banned encryption, gives the police the right to modifiy, add and remove files from your devices. And can also force its citizens to implement backdoors and basically be spies even in foreign countries and companies.
- pnw 4y agoNot to mention the extensive censorship. Ironically the only state which has legal X rated content and legal cannabis is the Australian Capital Territory which is where all the politicians live. (equivalent to DC).
- brokenmachine 4y agoAlso pill testing. Only in the ACT.
- pilgrimfff 4y agoAs soon as I saw the headline, figured it was Australia. It's a real stretch to call it a liberal democracy at this point.
- palmetieri2000 4y agoOh jog on, While I'm hardly impressed with this action from NSW State government, it does not represent Australia as an entirety. Further, while unusual and new, these are bail conditions. I challenge you to find a US state that does not engage in bail conditions similarly draconian. This is like seeing NYC or Cali Gun restrictions and saying the US isn't a liberal democracy because of them.
- markmark 4y agoExactly, they could have just refused this guy bail and nobody on hacker news would have ever heard of it or cared if they did. But mention the word encryption and the world is falling down.
- soraminazuki 4y agoPeople do care. The criminal justice system is a common topic on HN.
- Fargoan 4y agoRefusing him bail for a non-violent crime would be insane
- BLKNSLVR 4y agoRefused bail for non-violent protest might just stir up some conversation here on HN... (I believe) Australia is used by the US as a western testing ground for some of the more draconian freedom-restriction laws, especially vis-a-vis encryption. What gets accepted here will find its way over there. She'll be right mate...
- zaptheimpaler 4y agoThe conditions of his arrest sound ridiculous in the first place. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/jun/24/i-never-thought-i-could-face-arrest-and-imprisonment-campaigning-for-climate-action https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/jun/24/i-neve... https://www.queenslandjudgments.com.au/caselaw/qdc/2020/331 https://www.queenslandjudgments.com.au/caselaw/qdc/2020/331 He was charged for "interfering with a railway" because of a tripod suspended over a rail line? It sounds like he was basically pissed off some powerful coal people, got thrown in jail for that, and now his phone is police property.. Coming from a country thats not all that democratic in the first place, i think its important to at least understand that the appearance of "due process" e.g being charged with something or having a bail condition imposed does not by itself mean anything.. even Russia makes up some official charge before arresting someone.
- causality0 4y agoThe headline made me think he was a child pornographer. Holy shit, Australia does this for an illegal protest?
- jaza 4y agoNot just any old protest. Chaining oneself to train tracks, stopping coal-laden trains from reaching the Port of Newcastle (the world's biggest coal export facility). Don't underestimate what the fossil fools in power here in Australia will do, to literally ensure that their gravy train keeps rolling along.
- Gasp0de 4y agoThis guy blocked a road in Sydney, he didn't chain himself to train tracks.
- Flocular 4y agoDemocracy dies in darkness.
- BirAdam 4y agoDemocracy is not a good in itself. Democracy reflects the will of the people and the honesty of members of administration. If either of those are shit so is the democracy.
- Fargoan 4y agoI love Australia but their government is shit
- pnw 4y agoAlways has been. Look at their censorship regime for a start.
- p1necone 4y agoYou've posted this three times on this thread now without elaborating. What "censorship regime" are you talking about? I know that age ratings around video games are a little silly there (until 2012 there was no R18 rating for video games but there was for Movies/TV, so certain titles couldn't be sold there without modifications).
- pnw 4y agoThere’s a wikipedia article that covers it better than I could in a post, but censorship of books, movies, games and the Internet is common there.
- joshka 4y agoIt's the NSW government that passed the shitty authoritarian laws that caused this. Any guess which party runs that state?
- synicalx 4y agoThe same government that sicced anti-terror police on a comedian who was making fun of a now obviously corrupt politician.
- inkyoto 4y agoYou don't remember the late Stephen Conroy of the Labour Party who is responsible for single-handedly imposing sweeping Internet censorship laws onto the Australian public and mandatory ISP level filtering with the public not having the right to know what has been blacklisted? From the horse's mouth – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_Australia#Labor_Party https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_Austral...: > In May 2008, the government commenced an $82 million "cybersafety plan" _which included an additional mandatory filter with no opt-out provision_. This ISP-based filter aims to stop adults from downloading content that is illegal to possess in Australia, such as child pornography or materials related to terrorism. > In March 2009, Stephen Conroy dismissed suggestions that the Government would use the filter to crack down on political dissent as "conspiracy theories". He stated that the filter would only be used to remove "refused classification" (RC) content, using the same rationale as existing television, radio and print publications, and that the Senate could be relied upon to provide rigorous assessment of any proposed legislation. > On 9 November 2012, Stephen Conroy shelved the proposed mandatory filter legislation in favour of existing legislation, touting that _it was successful in compelling the largest ISPs to adopt a filter. As a result, 90% of Australian Internet users are censored from accessing some web-based content_.
- Panzer04 4y agoPretty serious overstep of rights - hopefully these kinds of restrictions don't pass muster when they get challenged. It's ridiculous we can impose this on someone who hasn't even been found guilty. I wouldn't take this as representative of Australia as a whole though - In many other respects we have excellent institutions and strong rights.
- partomniscient 4y agoIt's presumably revenge for the police getting caught out being stupid in an earlier encounter. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/jun/21/blockade-australia-activists-say-police-carrying-out-surveillance-refused-to-identify-themselves https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/jun/21/block... We also keep giving police 'temporary powers' that end up becoming permanent. We lost anything worthwhile when we lost the right to protest. The ludicrousness of thinking its acceptable to have to apply for a permit to protest is sheer insanity.
- christophilus 4y agoTemporary powers are (almost?) never a thing. This is why some of us lean libertarian / Liberal (in the classic sense). The government easily accretes power. It is much harder to reverse the process. It’s like technical debt in that sense.
- bearmode 4y agoConsistent reminder that the police will spend a tremendous amount of time, money, and energy surveilling and attempting to break up left-wing groups, whilst literal neo-nazi groups are left to grow their numbers. The police are working to curb threats to capital, they aren't there for us.
- azinman2 4y agoWhen I first started reading this I thought it was a fictional dystopian story to warn about the future. But this is now?!
- yoloyoloyoloa 4y agoAll these WEF friendly counties are going down hill especialy Australia and Canada when it comes to human rights. I am happy living in South Africa far away from Justin Castro or whatever the pm is Australia cant even remember his name all I rber is he is a coward and a liar with no backbone.
- __jambo 4y agothat was scomo = scott morrison, now it's anthony albanese, slightly different, maybe better.
- pnw 4y agoAustralia has always been somewhat of a prison colony with extensive censorship of media and the Internet and almost no constitutional rights as Americans understand them.
- calsy 4y agoWhat extensive censorship of media? Australian's have plenty of 'constitutional rights', the right to vote, the right to property, the right to trial by jury, freedom of religion.
- jasongi 4y ago"constitutional rights as Americans understand them" I assume is referring to the bill of rights. Australia doesn't have a bill of rights and most of our "rights" mentioned above are not "constituional" (in the sense that the constitution guarentees them) and are either conferred via common law, legislation, or not at all. And to be honest, I am OK with this. A lot of negative change in the US seems to be coming from a SCOTUS that nobody voted for and that the regular population cannot overrule without a constitutional amendment.
- jaza 4y agoYep. The general consensus here in Australia is: "look at the USA, their bill of rights has the right to bear arms, gee didn't that turn out great, we'll stick with what we've got thanks".
- senorrib 4y agoYou missed the “ as Americans understand them” part. Those are rights, but not constitutional.
- enasterosophes 4y ago
- calsy 4y ago
- unixbane 4y ago> you cannot turn on your lights because they are IOT shit and use encryption (albeit with vulnerabilities that bypass it) which is a weapon or something because they said in james bond Yep, this is what happens when you let people in technical and legal positions be harmfully stupid for decades on end.
- calsy 4y ago
- macintux 4y agoThe accused is not yet on trial, much less found guilty.
- calsy 4y agoHe has posted bail. You don't just walk out of court after you receive bail, there are always conditions associated. Knowing that these people are repeat offenders, the judge has ordered these conditions so they don't once again attempt to break the laws set by created by elected officials who were democratically elected to office. No liberty was stolen today!
- jdkee 4y agoToo bad Australia, Canada and the EU don't have the 4th and 5th Amendments.
- userbinator 4y agoThe first 3 are pretty important too.
- iso1631 4y ago
- tgv 4y agoFirst: the EU is not a judicial unity, and the power of the "EU" (or its organs) does not extend to the judicial system (cf. the fight with Poland). Second: All jurisdictions in the EU have "ne bis in idem" (which is part of the 5th, right?), and in the ones I know of, the suspect/defendant cannot be made to reply. Where I live, e.g. passwords are also under this doctrine, but not under all conditions. The 4th amendment is common too, although there are concerns that some member states aren't too concerned with a suspect's rights. Australia's problems don't automatically apply to the EU, not even from a USA-centric point of view.
- zmmmmm 4y agoI'm surprised that it doesn't come up in the article, but I would have thought those bail conditions substantially interfered with his ability to have a fair trial. How can he communicate with his lawyer in a secure manner if he can't use any kind of encryption and the police have all his phone passwords to look at any time? Are the the police going to read all his communications with his lawyer?
- christophilus 4y agoPresumably the same way suspects communicated with their lawyers before the advent of telephones?
- ivanb 4y agoIs there a decent country left in the world? One that values privacy, family values, private property and freedoms, knows a man from a woman and is not at war?
- ehnto 4y agoYou say freedom but it sounds like you already have some viewpoints you don't think should be allowed, so freedom for you but not for others?
- cato_the_elder 4y agoIt is. Not all of are relativists. Freedom and anarchy aren't synonyms. Contrary to popular belief, the fundamental freedoms many of us desire are not bestowed upon us by God or something. They are upheld at gun point, by threat of violence, and by borders.
- ehnto 4y agoI edited my comment potentially while you were writing your reply, sorry for that, hopefully not so much that your feel you replied to a different comment. I am in agreeance, however I don't think picking how you identify would count as anarchy, which is the part of the OPs comment I was alluding to. We still very much pick our fundamental freedoms, and decide where to draw lines, those are up to the community to decide upon. It's an odd place to draw the line, for a country that has decided ideological freedom and individualism is a value it wanted to protect.
- schoolornot 4y agoSweden
- drawingthesun 4y agoI don’t agree with these restrictions being imposed but it is worth noting that these are his bail conditions, alternatively the state could have denied bail and kept him in jail.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- lizardactivist 4y agoFirst steps towards a police state.
- sumosudo 4y agoHave you ever been to Australia? Well into a police state long time ago...
- 02020202 4y ago
- tomohawk 4y agoLeft wing nutjob states "Fines and jail time won't stop me" - so what does he expect? The rest of us will just give up and let him break whatever laws he wants?
- LatteLazy 4y agoIn this thread, people tell us they don't know what bail conditions are without telling us they don't know what bail conditions are...